Ceremonial Law like circumcision -- vs moral law of TEN Comm with Sabbath for ALL

[BobRyan]

Once again, you are not understanding the point here. Paul is speaking of things you can take either view about. They are not binding clearly. Are the Ten Coimmandments not binding in your view?

Paul says that the TEN - "having honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" are still binding on all mankind - Eph 6:2.

Paul says "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Paul says God's commandments include things like "do not covet" Rom 7
Paul says that the commandments related "love your neighbor as yourself" all come from the TEN in Rom 13.

James 2 says you cannot edit the Commandments and remove one.

1 Cor 8 proves that not all saved people have the same understanding of what is or is not sin

so whether it is prayers to the dead, or bowing down before images, or keeping God's Sabbath commandment etc - there are differing views among Christians about what is right vs wrong.

 

[michael21]

Paul says that the TEN - "having honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" are still binding on all mankind - Eph 6:2.

Paul says "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Paul says God's commandments include things like "do not covet" Rom 7
Paul says that the commandments related "love your neighbor as yourself" all come from the TEN in Rom 13.

James 2 says you cannot edit the Commandments and remove one.

1 Cor 8 proves that not all saved people have the same understanding of what is or is not sin

Glad you got back to your main point. Therefore, if the Ten are binding, as written, they must all be in the heart and mind of believers. One of the most basic tenets of scripture is the law illuminates the sin, through the law we become conscious of sin. I'm afraid sda have it wrong here. No one could be a christian unless they had heartlfet conviction of sin by failing to follow a saturday sabbath if sda belief is correct. Your argument is really with sola scripture here

 

[BobRyan]

Once again, you are not understanding the point here. Paul is speaking of things you can take either view about.

He is also proving that different saved groups can have different understanding of what is sin.

so whether it is prayers to the dead, or bowing down before images, or keeping God's Sabbath commandment etc - there are differing views among Christians about what is right vs wrong

 

[guevaraj]

I am sticking with scriptures as it clearly lets us know the Sabbath is on the seventh day Exodus 20:8-11 and it is from evening to evening. Lev 23:32. Our Jewish friends have been keeping the Sabbath correctly for centuries. Jesus kept the Sabbath correctly and there has always been a remnant who have kept the Sabbath and all of God's commandments, which includes keeping the Sabbath holy from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. What you are teaching is not biblical.

Sister, Hebrews 4 gives the reason God did not make them to enter His "rest" for 40 years with an oath. He made them keep the seventh day Sabbath from morning to morning with manna for 40 years that Hebrews highlights as not entering God's "rest" to show that to think that the Sabbath in Israel from evening to evening is the seventh day of the week in Israel as it was in Eden is wrong.

For only we who believe can enter his rest. As for the others, God said, “In my anger I took an oath: ‘They will never enter my place of rest,’” even though this rest has been ready since he made the world. (Hebrews 4:3 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[BobRyan]

No one could be a christian unless they had heartlfet conviction of sin by failing to follow a saturday sabbath

Clearly you don't have the SDA view that takes into account James 4:17 and John 9:41 as we do. you are still placing them on your ignore list

 

[michael21]

He is also proving that different saved groups can have different understanding of what is sin.

so whether it is prayers to the dead, or bowing down before images, or keeping God's Sabbath commandment etc - there are differing views among Christians about what is right vs wrong

God did not make an imperfect covenant, you cannot hide from the law he places within you. Just as, if you learnt your twelve times tables as a child cannot then say you do not know them can you, it is in your mind! There are disputable matters, granted, but that doesnt help you here, for you believe the ten are non disputable.

 

[michael21]

Clearly you don't have the SDA view that takes into account James 4:17 and John 9:41 as we do. you are still placing them on your ignore list

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Its strange you write the above, as you are ignoring the law reveals the sin.
I'll give you an example. If God wanted me to go and live in a christian community and I refused to do it, I would not be doing the good I should do, we can call that sin in one context. The same would not apply to you.

 

[BobRyan]

Your argument is that all Christians have the same understanding of what is right vs wrong. Paul differs in 1 Cor 8 and so does Christ differ in John 9:41 in the case of texts you are choosing to set aside yet calling it "sola scriptura".

Some Christians are just fine with praying to the dead, bowing down before images etc as part of their worship. Other Christians would have a real problem with that.

"feeling good about it" does not change God's word - but still each person is held accountable to what they believe to be fact/true/Biblical

I understand your need to avoid all these scriptures in this area - but please consider looking at them.

Non disputable matters are in the believers hearts and minds. And, as sola scripture states. Through the law we become conscious of sin

you keep ignoring this in my posts... this section will get larger over time..

Some Christians are just fine with praying to the dead, bowing down before images etc as part of their worship. Other Christians would have a real problem with that.

You and I both know that Christians "differ" on whether that violates the TEN Commandments or not.

Also in the dark ages - for century upon century Catholic Christians had no problem at all torturing and killing protestant Christians and others who "differed".

And for decades - Protestant Christians in places like England had no problem torturing and killing Catholic Christians.

Your argument that "if enough Christians are ok with it - then it must be fine" does not work.

"feeling good about it" does not change God's word - but still each person is held accountable to what they believe to be fact/true/Biblical

 

[BobRyan]

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Its strange you write the above, as you are ignoring the law reveals the sin.
I'll give you an example. If God wanted me to go and live in a christian community and I refused to do it, I would not be doing the good I should do, we can call that sin in one context. The same would not apply to you.

Agreed.

But beyond that two Christians looking at the SAME Ten commandments come away with differing views on bowing down to images, prayers to the dead, Catholic governments torturing protesting Catholics for centuries, vs Protestant governments torturing loyal Catholics (in England for a while)...

There is no such thing as "they always all saw it the same way" when looking at the same set of Commands from God and knowing what is or is not sin.

And there is no way to "edit God's word" to make it fit "whatever the majority FEELS good about".

So James 4:17 and John 9:41 ... matter

 

[michael21]

you keep ignoring this in my posts... this section will get larger over time..

Some Christians are just fine with praying to the dead, bowing down before images etc as part of their worship. Other Christians would have a real problem with that.

You and I both know that Christians "differ" on whether that violates the TEN Commandments or not.

Also in the dark ages - for century upon century Catholic Christians had no problem at all torturing and killing protestant Christians and others who "differed".

And for decades - Protestant Christians in places like England had no problem torturing and killing Catholic Christians.

Your argument that "if enough Christians are ok with it - then it must be fine" does not work.

"feeling good about it" does not change God's word - but still each person is held accountable to what they believe to be fact/true/Biblical

I must say, for an sda member to ignore sola scripture in order to defend catholics is a new one on me.
God's word does not change, but you ignore it sadly
Sin is the transgression of the law
Through the law we become conscious of sin
Every non disputable law, every law God wants you to follow is written in your mind and placed on your heart
You know, I seldom stay on these kind of websites for long. Nothing much meaningful can be gained from them. I now have an sda member, whom I am sure states regularly he supports sola scripture, arguing against one of the most basic tenets of it

 

[michael21]

Agreed.

But beyond that two Christians looking at the SAME Ten commandments come away with differing views on bowing down to images, prayers to the dead, Catholic governments torturing protesting Catholics for centuries, vs Protestant governments torturing loyal Catholics (in England for a while)...

There is no such thing as "they always all saw it the same way" when looking at the same set of Commands from God and knowing what is or is not sin.

And there is no way to "edit God's word" to make it fit "whatever the majority FEELS good about".

So James 4:17 and John 9:41 ... matter

James4:17 has already been addressed. So bearing in mind your argument. If someone claimed to be a christian but regularly committed murder, would you accept them as a christian, for they may have differing understanding of sin to you? How about adultery, or compulsive stealing?

 

[BobRyan]

I must say, for an sda member to ignore sola scripture in order to defend catholics is a new one on me.

Your view has to not only be that Catholics were wrong to torture protestants BUT ALSO that in England Protestants were wrong to torture Catholics... there is no way to spin this into "just find a way to defend Catholics"

God's word does not change,

But that includes James 4:17 and John 9:41

Every non disputable law, every law God wants you to follow is written in your mind and placed on your heart

So you claim all the Protestants knew they were in the wrong when they tortured Catholics and all Catholics knew they were wrong when they tortured Protestants?

Seriously? -- they have had rival papal armies killing fellow Catholics and everybody was being told if they died in such battles they would go straight to heaven.

The "clarity" you insist on did not exist for each person

"Sola Scriptura" means paying attention to ALL the texts on the topic - not just some of them.

 

[BobRyan]

James4:17 has already been addressed. So bearing in mind your argument. If someone claimed to be a christian but regularly committed murder, would you accept them as a christian, for they may have differing understanding of sin to you? How about adultery, or compulsive stealing?

WITHIN a given group as we see in 1 Cor 5 - discipline sets the line straight.

But between groups I cannot argue that Presbyterians are right to ignore the bible teaching on believers Baptism. A lot of Baptists would agree with me on this point no matter that the Presbyterians "feel good" about infant baptism..

I also cannot agree with prayers to the dead or bowing down to images - but a great many Catholic Christians would "feel good" about differing with me.

Just saying a large number of Christians "feel good" about something does not change the Bible - but it does bring in James 4:17 and John 9:41 where each person is accountable to what they know to be right.

You cannot just dismiss all this as "defending protestants for killing Catholics" or "defending Catholics for killing protestants" or "defending infant baptism" etc.

 

[michael21]

Your view has to not only be that Catholics were wrong to torture protestants BUT ALSO that in England Protestants were wrong to torture Catholics... there is no way to spin this into "just find a way to defend Catholics"

God's word does not change,

But that includes James 4:17 and John 9:41



So you claim all the Protestants knew they were in the wrong when they tortured Catholics and all Catholics knew they were wrong when they tortured Protestants?

Seriously? -- they have had rival papal armies killing fellow Catholics and everybody was being told if they died in such battles they would go straight to heaven.

The "clarity" you insist on did not exist for each person

"Sola Scriptura" means paying attention to ALL the texts on the topic - not just some of them.

Thankyou for making your position clear. The law of God does not necessarily make believers conscious of sin. I'm just here to discuss the bible, and with you sola scripture. It appears you do not accept sola scripture, when it disagrees with your denominational belief.
I'm not here to discuss the spiritual state of people who tortured others. But I do understand, your denominational belief must be defended, even when it means ignoring-refusing to accept sola scripture

 

[michael21]

WITHIN a given group as we see in 1 Cor 5 - discipline sets the line straight.

But between groups I cannot argue that Presbyterians are right to ignore the bible teaching on believers Baptism. A lot of Baptists would agree with me on this point no matter that the Presbyterians "feel good" about infant baptism..

I also cannot agree with prayers to the dead or bowing down to images - but a great many Catholic Christians would "feel good" about differing with me.

Just saying a large number of Christians "feel good" about something does not change the Bible - but it does bring in James 4:17 and John 9:41 where each person is accountable to what they know to be right.

You cannot just dismiss all this as "defending protestants for killing Catholics" or "defending Catholics for killing protestants" or "defending infant baptism" etc.

Yes, I understand, in order to defend catholics/catholicism you are prepared to ignore one of the most basic tenets of sola scripture in the bible. Or possibly, anything in order to deflect from sola scripture in this instance

 

[michael21]

WITHIN a given group as we see in 1 Cor 5 - discipline sets the line straight.

But between groups I cannot argue that Presbyterians are right to ignore the bible teaching on believers Baptism. A lot of Baptists would agree with me on this point no matter that the Presbyterians "feel good" about infant baptism..

I also cannot agree with prayers to the dead or bowing down to images - but a great many Catholic Christians would "feel good" about differing with me.

Just saying a large number of Christians "feel good" about something does not change the Bible - but it does bring in James 4:17 and John 9:41 where each person is accountable to what they know to be right.

You cannot just dismiss all this as "defending protestants for killing Catholics" or "defending Catholics for killing protestants" or "defending infant baptism" etc.

BTW
Do you obey the letter of the Ten Commandments? A simple yes or no will suffice

 

[BobRyan]

BTW
Do you obey the letter of the Ten Commandments? A simple yes or no will suffice

Why not?

Do you mean "as opposed to declaring opposition to them"??

 

[michael21]

Why not?

Can you not answer yes or no, is there a reason you are reticent?
Do you obey the letter of the Ten Commandments.
Its a simple question

 

[michael21]

Why not?

Do you mean "as opposed to declaring opposition to them"??

Do you fully obey the letter of the Ten Commandments?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, I understand, in order to defend catholics/catholicism

So when I say Protestants in England did not "feel bad" about killing Catholics - you view this as a "defense of Catholicism".

Or when I say Catholics did not "feel bad" about killing protestants for centuries - you view this as defending Catholicism?

Are you trying to have it "both ways"?

Are you saying you think that about 1.3 B Christians are lost because they do not share your beliefs?

Is that your POV?